Re: [PATCH RT 00/02] SLOB optimizations

[Ingo Molnar]

* Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >in any case, on sane platforms (i386, x86_64) an irq-disable is 
> >well-optimized in hardware, and is just as fast as a preempt_disable().
> 
> I'm afraid its not the case on current hardware.
> 
> The irq enable/disable pair count for more than 50% the cpu time spent 
> in kmem_cache_alloc()/kmem_cache_free()/kfree()

because you are not using NMI based profiling?

> oprofile results on a dual Opteron 246 :
> 
> You can see the high profile numbers right after cli and popf(sti) 
> instructions, popf being VERY expensive.

that's just the profiling interrupt hitting them. You should not analyze 
irq-safe code with a non-NMI profiling interrupt.

CLI/STI is extremely fast. (In fact in the -rt tree i'm using them 
within mutexes instead of preempt_enable()/preempt_disable(), because 
they are faster and generate less register side-effect.)

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/